Main opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) leader Ousainu Darboe announced his party's withdrawal from the ongoing opposition coalition talks, which were initiated by the Coalition Task Force Mediation Committee (CTMC). Mr. Darboe confirmed that the Main opposition United Democratic Party has formally left these discussions. The UDP is now focusing its efforts on separate coalition discussions under the APEX Initiative, Mr. Darboe confirmed.
Mr. Darboe stated that the UDP would not accept eligibility criteria that were "skewed against UDP" and crafted by individuals who he claimed had previously called for unity against the UDP and NPP. He explained that the CTMC mediators had expressed preferences for alliance models before joining the committee, leading to concerns about fairness from the outset. Darboe further elaborated that the UDP's decision to leave the discussions stemmed from several unacceptable aspects of the process. He explicitly stated that some of these aspects were included to target him personally, while other proposed elements were considered unconstitutional by the party. "After carefully considering all these issues, we are now formally pulling out of this coalition initiative and will continue to take part in the discussions by APEX, where we hope we will be able to reach a reasonable compromise among participants," Darboe said. He further specified that the criteria appeared to be designed to target him personally, referencing past accusations regarding the failure of Coalition 2016.
Concerns Over Coalition Criteria
Ousainu Darboe explained the United Democratic Party's decision to withdraw from the coalition discussions stemmed from several unacceptable aspects of the process. He stated that some criteria appeared specifically designed to target him personally, while other proposed elements were considered unconstitutional by the party. Mr. Darboe further contended that the Coalition Task Force Mediation Committee (CTMC) was actively crafting rules that were disproportionately disadvantageous to the UDP, asserting that the CTMC was crafting rules that are skewed against the UDP. He asserted that these criteria were intended to create an uneven playing field for his party within the coalition framework. The UDP believes that the process includes elements that are unacceptable to the party, directly leading to their withdrawal.
The UDP also expressed strong opposition to the voting process proposed by the Committee. According to the party, this process would place the UDP, a well-established political entity, at the same level as Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and emerging political movements. The party argued that these newer groups lacked the grassroots, regional, or national structures comparable to those of the UDP. The UDP opposes this voting process proposed by the Committee, which it views as inappropriately equating its established presence with that of CSOs and political movements that are only emerging and lack comparable foundational structures. This proposed voting structure was cited as a major point of contention, contributing to the UDP's decision to leave the talks. The party viewed this as an attempt to diminish its influence and equal footing despite its established presence and support base. The UDP maintains that its long-standing commitment and investment in the country's political landscape should be recognized in any coalition framework.
UDP's Established Strength
The United Democratic Party (UDP) expressed disagreement with an eligibility criterion from the Coalition Task Force Mediation Committee (CTMC) requiring candidates to have no verifiable history of sabotaging coalition efforts. The UDP explicitly states its disagreement with this particular eligibility criterion outlined by the Committee. The UDP also found another criterion contradictory, which stipulated that a candidate must demonstrate active engagement with party structures and grassroots connections. The party found this criterion regarding grassroots connections contradictory, especially given the UDP's extensive history and established infrastructure. Mr. Darboe stated that the UDP has existed and invested for 30 years in the politics of The Gambia. He further noted the party's established infrastructure, including its structures, National Assembly Members (NAMs), mayors, and councillors. He emphasized that the party's three decades of continuous engagement and investment in the country's political landscape provide it with unparalleled structures, including representatives at various levels of governance. These points of contention contributed to the UDP's decision to withdraw from the coalition talks, as the party felt its unique position and contributions were not being adequately acknowledged or respected.
Proposed Power Sharing Disagreements
The United Democratic Party (UDP) opposes the Coalition Task Force Mediation Committee's framework that calls for the establishment of a governing council upon assuming office. The party also expressed its disagreement with the power-sharing model proposed during the discussions, stating that most actors involved were primarily concerned with the positions they would hold if the coalition were victorious. The UDP opposes this power-sharing model because it perceives that the primary motivation for many actors is self-interest in securing positions rather than a collective vision for governance. The UDP seeks an alliance built on principles of fairness and honesty, one that reflects the democratic values of the country and recognizes the established strength of political parties. The party desires an alliance rooted in genuine fairness and honesty, which truly embodies the democratic values of the nation and gives due recognition to the inherent strength and contributions of established political parties. Among the suggestions for power sharing were proposals to appoint coalition partners as governors or senior civil servants. The UDP believes that these roles should operate purely as civil servants, rather than as representatives of political parties or as political appointees, emphasizing the importance of non-partisan administration in such critical public service roles.